Neeta Yadav Wife Of Mukesh Yadav vs The Director Elementary ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7846 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14896/2020

Neeta Yadav Wife Of Mukesh Yadav, Aged About 43 Years,
Resident Of Plot No. B-25, Dadu Dayal Colony, Mansarower,
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     The Director Elementary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan)
2.     The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
       Jaipur
3.     The Additional Chief Executive Officer (Primary), Zila
       Parishad, Jaipur
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Kumar Dubey, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Raghav, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

15/12/2022

1. The present writ petition has been filed with the

following prayers:-

"(A) The respondents may be directed to give notional benefits of seniority and permanent status of service to the petitioners on the post of Prabodhak w.e.f. 30.09.2008, while counting the probation period of petitioner w.e.f. 30.09.2008, on which date the similarly situated and even lesser meritorious candidates were given appointment. (B) The respondents may kindly be directed to give benefit of regular pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 30.09.2008, and arrears of salary etc. with interest from the date of payment.

(c) The respondents may kindly be directed to provide the benefit of selection grade while counting initial date of their appointment w.e.f. 30.09.2008 on which date the persons similarly situated and even

(2 of 3) [CW-14896/2020]

lesser meritorious than the petitioners were provided appointment against the vacancies.

(d) The respondents to give same benefits as given in the case of "SBCWP No. 5178/2020 titled as 'Manjulata Rohilla & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.' decided vide order dated 27.07.2020 (Annex.-8)

(e) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court, may deem fit and proper in the light of facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.

(f) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

matter is squarely covered by order of Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in SBCWP No. 5178/2020 titled as Manjulata Rohilla &

Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., which was disposed of in light of

order dated 12.02.2015, passed in SBCWP No. 5405/2012 titled

as Suman Jhanwar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General, present in court,

accepts the notice on behalf of the respondents. He has raised

following objections: (i) that the selection process is of 2008 and

petitioner has come in the year 2020. Therefore, the petition is

barred on delay and laches (ii) that representation has to be

considered by authorities as per its own merits.

4. However, learned counsel for the respondents is not

able to refute the order of SBCWP No. 5178/2020.

5. Considering the arguments raised, without commenting

upon the merits of the present matter and relying upon

judgment/order of Manjulata Rohilla (supra) , the relevant part

of which is reiterated below:-

"In the case of Suman Jhanwar (supra), this Court after hearing the parties, passed the following order:-

"Therefore, the present writ petitions are disposed of with liberty and direction to the petitioners to file appropriate representation with relevant evidence before the appointing authority, who has

(3 of 3) [CW-14896/2020]

issued the orders of appointment to the petitioners claiming the same relief, as purportedly given to other similar situated persons. It is expected of the respondent authority to pass speaking orders after providing the opportunity of hearing tot he petitioners or their authorized representative as to why similar benefit cannot be extended to them though others persons have been given such benefits. If, however, any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, the petitioners will be at liberty to avail the legal remedy available to them in accordance with law."

In view of the submissions as noticed hereinbefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with the similar directions as given in the case of Suman Jhanwar (supra)."

5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is also

disposed of with the similar directions as given in the case of

Manjulata Rohilla (supra).

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Pooja/48

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)